Crime and Its Punishment: Alfonso Ceccarelli's False Chronicles
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto Crime and its Punishment: Alfonso Ceccarelli’s False Chronicles Sari Kivistö, University of Helsinki This article focuses on the tradition of false chronicles in the early modern period, presenting some famous impostors and forgers, their motives, methods and justifications for their work. One interesting figure in the history of forgeries was Alfonso Ceccarelli (1532–1583), a medical doctor who, in order to acquire easy money, began composing fictive historical documents such as family trees that traced a family’s roots to important bishops, popes and ancient heroes. To give credibility to these fictive genealogies, Ceccarelli compiled historical manuscripts, which he passed off as genuine documents, and he referred to non-existent chronicles to verify his claims. When his frauds and forgeries were finally revealed and he was publicly accused in court, Ceccarelli confessed that he had indeed created many kinds of documents, but he appealed to his good intentions and insisted that when he added something to an old book, he justified it by adding truth. Ceccarelli’s case is particularly fascinating because he was severely punished for his forgeries; before his death he produced an apology that questioned the distinctions between true and false histories. This article argues that Ceccarelli’s story reveals important conventions in traditional historiography (to use his expression) and broadens our notions of the functions and significance of such falsifications in rewriting the past. Defining Forgeries This article discusses the reasons why historical documents and chronicles were fabricated and how early modern impostors and forgers justified their actions. In order to provide some background I will first briefly present what was understood by the concept of literary forgery in the early modern period; secondly, I will present some famous sixteenth-century fabricators in order to illustrate their practices, and thirdly, I will focus on one figure in the history of forgery, Alfonso Ceccarelli (1532– 1583, also known as Ciccarelli), who, in order to earn easy money, gave up his career as a medical doctor and began composing fictive historical documents, family trees and chronicles. Ceccarelli’s case Mari Isoaho (ed.) Past and Present in Medieval Chronicles Studies across Disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences 17. Helsinki: Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. 148–175. Sari Kivistö is particularly compelling, because he was severely punished for his forgeries. Before his death he produced an apology in which he questioned the conventional methods of historiography. In an almost postmodern way Ceccarelli tried to justify his forgeries by appealing to the dominant cultural practices of producing and reproducing new texts through invention and copying.1 What should we make of Ceccarelli’s argument that his manner of correcting history with useful additions and interpolations merely stabilised former truth? How could such forgeries be justified? What were the usual punishments for such frauds? The main argument here is that Ceccarelli’s case shows us some important conventions in traditional historiography (to use his expression) and broadens our notions of the functions of forged chronicles and other falsifications in rewriting the past. First of all, it should be recognised that, according to early modern critics, literary thefts, forgeries and the misuse of sources were common phenomena. Literary frauds were addressed in a number of seventeenth-century Latin treatises, including ethical, philosophical and polemical works. These treatises have remained relatively unknown and unstudied, and therefore modern critics are unaware that in these works literary frauds were, for example, divided into different types.2 In a plagiarised text the author usually intentionally adopts and steals the writings of others and publishes them as his own, whereas in a forgery the author intentionally fabricates texts and attributes his own falsifications to someone else. ‘Suppositions’ or replacements (suppositiones) were mentioned as a separate class of literary fraud, and this is the class which we today associate with forgeries. According to Burkhard Gotthelf Struve’s literary-historical dissertation De doctis impostoribus (1703), there were two main ways of making such forgeries (suppositiones): the first was by changing words or entire passages in old books; the second was by publishing books under a false name.3 The latter category included several sub-forms: 1 Postmodern critics have often considered borrowing, imitation and even plagiarism as inevitable or creative literary practices; see Kivistö 2012, 292. 2 One type of literary fraud was plagiarism. In his important philosophical dissertation on plagiarism entitled De plagio literario (1673), the Leipzig philosopher and jurist Jacob Thomasius (1622–1684) defined plagiarism as literary theft in which an author transcribed the writings of others and represented them as his own, deliberately suppressing the name of the original author with intent to deceive (§98). Thomasius’s treatise and other early modern texts on plagiarism identified different types of plagiarism, each of which reflected the quantitative extent of the stolen material and the nature of the theft. These types were given Latin names: totale (total), partiale (partial); manifestum (evident), occultum (concealed); crassum (thick, obvious, concerning both words and ideas) and subtile (subtle, concerning thoughts alone); see Thomasius 1673, §50, §265–282. These categories have not usually been recognised in modern works. For a more detailed discussion of these treatises and for discussion of early modern plagiarism, see Kivistö 2012 and 2014, 118–134. Parts of the present article previously appeared in the latter publication in slightly different form. 3 Struve 1703, §II. For Struve, suppositions (suppositiones) were one type of literary frauds (fraudes, imposturae). Another interesting text that mentioned learned imposters was the archivist Johann Gottfried Büchner’s Schediasma historico-literarium de vitiorum inter eruditos occurrentium scriptoribus, which was published in Leipzig in 1718. On suppositions, see Büchner 1718, Cap. II, Sect. II, §VII–VIII. Büchner was the first to collect a bibliography of writings about scholarly sins. In his treatise Büchner identified books on scholarly vices in general or specifically related to certain professions (see Kivistö 2014). He divided suppositions into different types relying on Struve’s dissertation. 149 Past and Present in Medieval Chronicles authors could publish their own writings under someone else’s name, or they could use pseudonyms. Works were often published that were falsely attributed to Aristotle, Plato, Homer, Hippocrates and Galen.4 These acts of concealment were not always contemptible, but they were criticised if the author published something suspicious, infamous or heretical under a fictitious name, or if such compilers falsely added the names of illustrious authors to their own modest creations, thereby attempting to gain money, credibility or merit.5 Struve described how newly written texts were presented as old manuscripts in order to deceive those who venerated antiquity. It has been argued that the fabrication of classical fakes and antiquities became big business around the early sixteenth century, whereas in the Middle Ages classical fakes and inscriptions had been rare.6 The antiquarian interests of the Renaissance humanists inspired the production of pseudo-antique artworks and ‘rediscovered’ historical texts, whereas religious controversies produced other kinds of forged documents. The invention of the printing press and the growing book market made the dissemination and circulation of (true and false) knowledge much easier than before. The corpuses of Latin inscriptions, for example, included a vast number of fake inscriptions, produced when Renaissance antiquarians and other men were inspired by nostalgia for the past.7 ‘Classical’ forgeries included ancient stones and inscriptions, which cheaters secretly buried and which, when unearthed, passed for ancient monuments and original epigraphic writings. These pranks also found their way into literary storytelling, in satirical texts ridiculing experts and enthusiasts who would not praise anything unless it was old and ancient and who were easily deceived in their enthusiasm. In his famous lectures on learned charlatans from 1715, Johann Burkhard Mencken ridiculed the learned Jesuit, Athanasius Kircher, for his admiration of antiquity: 4 Morhof 1714, I. I. IX.4. 5 Struve 1703, §II: “De illis autem potissimum agemus, qui scriptis suis illustrium nomina praefixerunt, vel ut fidem aliquam scriptis facerent, vel ut fallerent ementes, vel ut sententiam suam stabilirent”. See also Büchner 1718, Cap. II, Sect. II, §VIII. Büchner mentions several learned imposters, such as Annio da Viterbo and Alfonso Ceccarelli. 6 See Stephens 2004, 206–207; Hiatt 2004, 9; Constable 1983, 14; Bernheim 1908, 331–376. Of course, there were many other kinds of forgeries in the Middle Ages, such false relics. Bernheim distinguishes between different types of forgeries, ranging from material forgeries, such as relics, statues and coins, to written documents, such as inscriptions, privileges and chronicles. He also mentions the oral tradition of telling sagas as an instance of untrue stories, which rely in